Q: Is the SDA claim that we are saved by "the faith of Christ" (His faithfulness), not our "faith in Christ," biblically sound?
A: This argument draws on a real and important Greek distinction in the pistis Christou debate, but RE TU YA's framing conflates a legitimate exegetical discussion with a theologically misleading conclusion.
The Greek phrase pistis Christou (e.g., Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:22) can be rendered either as an objective genitive ("faith in Christ," the traditional reading) or a subjective genitive ("the faith/faithfulness of Christ"). Many Reformed and evangelical scholars (Hays, Dunn, Campbell) favor the subjective genitive. This is not unique to Adventism.
However, the text of Galatians 2:16 itself contains both pistis Christou and an explicit call for believers to believe in Christ Jesus (hina pisteuōmen eis Christon Iēsoun). Paul's point is not either/or but the ground of justification: it rests on Christ's own covenantal faithfulness, received through our faith, apart from works of the Torah. The SDA framing uses this to subtly diminish the necessity of personal, active faith, which is contrary to the whole thrust of Paul (Romans 10:9–10; Acts 16:31).
Q: What about the covenant comparison chart? Does Waggoner/Jones/White represent genuine New Covenant Theology?
A: The Waggoner/Jones/White column maps surprisingly close to NCT and even Calvinist/Arminian evangelical positions in several points, one-sided promise, grace through Christ's faithfulness, condition of the heart, Agape-based. These are commendable emphases.
However, Point 7 is the critical SDA fault line: The Waggoner/Jones/White column claims the Ten Commandments were "not the covenant but its basis," while the Butler/Smith/Porter column wavers between that and saying they were the covenant. Ironically, both SDA columns get this wrong in the same direction; they both resist the plain reading of Scripture.
Exodus 34:28 is decisive here: "He wrote the Ten Commandments, the words of the covenant, on the tablets." The text does not say the Ten Commandments were the basis of the covenant; it explicitly identifies them as the covenant itself (devarim habberit "the words of the covenant"). Deuteronomy 4:13 confirms this: "He declared to you His covenant, which He commanded you to follow, the Ten Commandments." The Hebrew is unambiguous. The Decalogue is the Mosaic covenant's core stipulations, not a foundation beneath it, not a separate eternal moral law floating above it.
This matters enormously for NCT: because the Ten Commandments are the Old Covenant, and the Old Covenant is explicitly declared obsolete in Hebrews 8:13, the Decalogue as a covenant document has been fulfilled and superseded in Christ. The moral substance it reflects is not abolished murder, theft, idolatry remain sins under the New Covenant, but the Mosaic Decalogue as covenant law, including its Sabbath ordinance, belongs to the old administration that Christ brought to its telos. The SDA insistence on keeping the Sabbath as an unchanged, permanently binding commandment cannot survive Exodus 34:28 read honestly within its canonical context.
Point 8 also reveals the issue: the SDA view that the old covenant was "for national Israel" while the new is "for the individual" is dispensational thinking, which is ironic given their criticism of Dispensationalism.
Q: Is the SDA's "Salvation by grace through the faith of Jesus" (Point 5) orthodox?
A: Taken in isolation, yes, Christ's obedience and faithfulness are the ground of our justification (Romans 5:19; Philippians 3:9). This is Reformation theology. But SDA soteriology does not stop there. Historically, SDA theology has tied final justification to the Investigative Judgment (beginning 1844), where one's record is reviewed before final salvation is confirmed. This means the "grace through Christ's faithfulness" functions as the initial basis, but ongoing obedience, including Sabbath observance, becomes functionally necessary for final vindication. That is not salvation by grace through faith alone. It is grace plus works at the eschatological finish line.
Q: What is the most important thing to press an SDA on from this chart?
A: Ask them: "If we are saved entirely by the faith/faithfulness of Christ, why does Ellen White teach that in the Investigative Judgment, each person's record of obedience is examined to determine final salvation?" The chart's left column sounds evangelical; SDA systematic theology is not. The gospel of Waggoner and Jones was actually opposed by the SDA establishment in 1888. The denomination never fully resolved that internal conflict, and it shows.
Summary: The pistis Christou argument is a real exegetical position, not inherently heretical. But in SDA hands, it is used to bypass personal faith and prop up a covenantal structure that keeps the Mosaic Decalogue permanently binding, undermining the very New Covenant it claims to affirm. As a New Covenant Theologian, my strongest response is Hebrews 7–10: the entire Levitical/Mosaic system, including its Sabbath typology, finds its telos in Christ. To re-impose it is not faithfulness to the covenant; it is a failure to see what Christ has done.
Former Adventists Philippines
“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”
For more inquiries, contact us:
Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph
Former Adventists Philippines Association, Inc
SEC Registration No: 2025090219381-03
Help keep this content free for everyone. I am committed to sharing these truths and resources freely. If you have found value in my articles since 2021 and would like to partner with me in this ministry, your support on Ko-fi would be greatly appreciated. It helps cover the costs of maintaining this blog and creating new content.
❤️ Partner with me on Ko-fi
https://ko-fi.com/ronaldobidos
Gcash# 09695143944
PayPal: paypal.me/formeradventistsph
No comments:
Post a Comment